Emicizumab prophylaxis in infants: Single-centre experience.

The hallmark of haemophilia A (HA) therapy is prophylaxis, aimed at spontaneous bleeding prevention. Emicizumab provides a viable alternative to intravenous factor replacement therapy. However, data on its use in infants are limited. This single-centre open arm prospective study reports on emicizumab prophylaxis in infants. We included severe HA patients under 1 year who started emicizumab prophylaxis since 2018, with longitudinal follow-up. The study collected data on demographics, clinical and laboratory variables, the occurrence of bleeding events, surgeries and treatment outcomes. Of the 27 enrolled infants, whose median age at prophylaxis initiation was 7 months, 24 primarily choose to start emicizumab therapy (3/27 switched from FVIII prophylaxis due to development of FVIII inhibitors). The median age for prophylaxis initiation decreased to 3 months in 2023. Following emicizumab initiation, the median calculated ABR decreased, and no intracranial haemorrhages were observed. Thrombin generation showed a significant improvement in peak height and endogenous thrombin potential at steady state after a loading period. Our study highlights a shift towards early prophylaxis in the era of non-replacement therapies. It underscores the need for continuous evaluation and refinement of treatment approaches, emphasizing personalized care and diligent monitoring in the evolving field of paediatric haemophilia care.

Reduced doses of emicizumab achieve good efficacy: Results from a national-wide multicentre real-world study in China.

INTRODUCTION: Reduced doses of emicizumab improve the affordability among patients in developing countries. However, the relationship between variant dose selection and efficacy in the real world of China is still unclear. AIM: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of emicizumab especially in those on reduced dose regimens in a real-world setting. METHODS: We carried out a multicentre study from 28 hospitals between June 2019 and June 2023 in China and retrospectively analysed the characteristics including demographics, diagnosis, treatment, bleeding episodes, and surgical procedures. RESULTS: In total, 127 patients with haemophilia A, including 42 with inhibitors, were followed for a median duration of 16.0 (IQR: 9.0-30.0) months. Median age at emicizumab initiation was 2.0 (IQR: 1.0-4.0) years. Median (IQR) consumption for loading and maintenance was 12.0 (8.0-12.0) and 4.2 (3.0-6.0) mg/kg/4 weeks, respectively. While on emicizumab, 67 (52.8%) patients had no bleeds, whereas 60 (47.2%) patients had any bleeds, including 26 with treated bleeds. Compared to previous treatments, patients on emicizumab had significantly decreased annualized bleeding rate, annualized joint bleeding rate, target joints and intracerebral haemorrhage. Different dosages had similar efficacy except the proportion of patients with treated spontaneous bleeds and target joints. Adverse events were reported in 12 (9.4%) patients. Postoperative excessive bleeding occurred following two of nine procedures. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study describing patients with HA receiving emicizumab prophylaxis on variant dose regimens in China. We confirmed that nonstandard dose is efficacious and can be considered where full-dose emicizumab is ill affordable.

Transitioning from emicizumab prophylaxis to valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene therapy: A simulation study for individuals with severe haemophilia A.

INTRODUCTION: Valoctocogene roxaparvovec, a gene therapy evaluated in the phase 3 GENEr8-1 trial, supports endogenous factor VIII (FVIII) production to prevent bleeding in people with severe haemophilia A. Individuals receiving emicizumab, an antibody mimicking the function of activated FVIII, were excluded from GENEr8-1 enrolment since emicizumab was an investigational therapy at the time of trial initiation. AIM: Utilize pharmacokinetic simulations to provide guidance on best practices for maintaining haemostatic control while transitioning from emicizumab prophylaxis to valoctocogene roxaparvovec. METHODS: To estimate bleeding risk at weekly intervals following valoctocogene roxaparvovec infusion, a published emicizumab pharmacokinetic model was used to simulate emicizumab concentrations and merged with FVIII activity time-course data for participants in GENEr8-1. The analysis investigated three approved emicizumab dosing regimens for two transition scenarios that varied whether the last dose of emicizumab was administered on the same day or 4 weeks after valoctocogene roxaparvovec infusion. RESULTS: Simulations demonstrated administering the last emicizumab dose the day of valoctocogene roxaparvovec infusion and 4 weeks after offered similar levels of haemostatic control, and bleeding risk was similar for all emicizumab dosing regimens. An algorithm was developed to provide guidance for discontinuation of emicizumab. Theoretical cases based on GENEr8-1 participants are presented to illustrate how decisions may vary among individuals. CONCLUSION: Pharmacokinetic simulations demonstrated no clinically meaningful difference in bleeding risk caused by decaying emicizumab levels and rising gene therapy-derived endogenous FVIII for all examined emicizumab doses and dosing regimens. Therefore, multiple approaches can safely transition individuals from emicizumab prophylaxis to valoctocogene roxaparvovec.

Benefits and risks of non-factor therapies: Redefining haemophilia treatment goals in the era of new technologies.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last decades progress in haemophilia treatment has been remarkable and prophylaxis with clotting factor concentrates in haemophilia A and B has been established as the standard of care in individuals with haemophilia and a severe bleeding phenotype. Besides clotting factor products with prolonged half-life non-factor therapies were developed which enable prophylaxis via subcutaneous administration. Factor VIIIa mimetics like emicizumab facilitate the coagulation pathway and are used in routine clinical practice for indivdiduals with haemophilia A. Rebalancing therapeutic agents like fitusiran, concizumab, marstacimab and serpin PC block the anticoagulant pathway and clinical trials using these products in individuals with haemophilia A and B are ongoing. AIM AND METHODS: A narrative review to asess the benefits and risks of non-factor therapies taking in to account re-defined haemophilia treatment goals. RESULTS: Prophylaxis for prevention of bleeds using non-factor products by subcutaneous administration is effective and results in reductions of bleeding episodes in individuals with haemophilia A or B with and without inhibitors. The treatment with emicizumab showed tolerable safety both in clinical trials and long-term real-world observations with few thrombotic events. In some clinical trials with rebalancing therapies (fitusiran and concizumab) thrombotic events occurred. Monitoring of the haemostatic function of novel therapies especially with concomitant haemostatic treatment is not yet established. CONCLUSION: With the advent of novel therapeutic agents including factor concentrates with ultra-long half-life and improved FVIIIa mimetics aimed at raising the bar of protection into the non-hemophilic range redefinition of haemophilia treatment goals is eagerly needed.

How much prophylaxis is enough in haemophilia?

INTRODUCTION: Prophylaxis has become standard of care for all persons with haemophilia (PWH) with a severe phenotype. However, 'standard prophylaxis' with either factor or non-factor therapies (currently only emicizumab available) is prohibitively expensive for much of the world. We sought to address the question of 'How much prophylaxis is enough?' and 'Can it be individualized?' and specifically 'Can emicizumab be individualized?'. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on prophylaxis in haemophilia since its inception in the 1950s to the present, the development of more and less intense factor prophylaxis regimens and their outcomes and additionally the published outcomes of prophylaxis with low dose emicizumab. RESULTS: What these experiences collectively show is that low dose emicizumab does result in significant benefits to patients whilst being much less expensive than a "one size fits all" emicizumab prophylaxis approach. We also took note that some non-factor therapies still in development are individualized given that high doses of these can potentially put patients at risk. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis is now clearly accepted as standard of care for PWH with a severe phenotype but now in a very short time a large assortment of different treatment options for prophylaxis have become/are becoming available and the haemophilia community will need to determine how to best use these recognizing that no 'one treatment fits all'.

Bleeding control improves after switching to emicizumab: Real-world experience of 177 children in the PedNet registry.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the rapid uptake of emicizumab in the paediatric haemophilia A (HA) population, real-world data on the safety and efficacy is limited. AIM: To report on bleeding and safety in paediatric patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis. METHODS: Data were extracted from the multicentre prospective observational PedNet Registry (NCT02979119). Children with haemophilia A, and ≥50 FVIII exposures or inhibitors present receiving emicizumab maintenance therapy were analysed. Data were summarized as medians with interquartile range (IQR, P25-P75). Mean (95% confidence interval (CI)), annualized (joint) bleeding rate (A(J)BR) during emicizumab and ≤2 years before emicizumab prophylaxis were modelled and compared using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Total of 177 patients started emicizumab at median 8.6 years (IQR 4.8-13.1), most had no FVIII inhibitors (64%). Follow up before emicizumab was median: 1.68 years (IQR: 1.24-1.90) and during emicizumab: 1.32 years (IQR: .94-2.11). In patients without inhibitors, mean ABR reduced after starting emicizumab from 2.41 (CI 1.98-2.95) to 1.11 (CI .90-1.36, p < .001), while AJBR reduced from.74 (CI .56-.98) to.31 (CI .21-.46, p < .001). Concordantly, in patients with inhibitors, mean ABR reduced from 5.08 (CI 4.08-6.38) to .75 (CI .56-1.01, p < .001), while AJBR reduced from 1.90 (CI 1.42-2.58) to .34 (CI .21-.56, p < .001). Five emicizumab-related adverse events were reported (3% of the cohort), including one patient with antidrug antibodies. CONCLUSION: This study showed improved bleeding control compared to previous treatment and a favourable safety profile during emicizumab therapy in paediatric haemophilia A patients.

The importance and evolution of bleeding disorder registries.

Registries are excellent sources of data to address questions that are typically not evaluated in randomized clinical trials, including natural history, disease prevalence, treatment approaches and adverse events, and models of care. Global and regional registries can provide data to identify differences in outcomes and in haemophilia care between countries, economic settings, and regions, while facilitating research and data sharing. In this manuscript, we highlight five bleeding disorder registries: Country registries from Australia and China, Paediatric Network on Haemophilia Management (PedNet) data on children who have received emicizumab, data from the European Haemophilia Safety Surveillance (EUHASS) system, and data on women and girls with haemophilia from the World Federation of Haemophilia (WFH) registries. Data from these and other bleeding disorder registries have been and will continue to be used to advance patient care, understand treatment patterns and adverse reactions, and identify areas of increased need and focus.

Real-world effectiveness of eptacog beta in patients with haemophilia and inhibitors: A multi-institutional case series.

INTRODUCTION: The management of bleeding events (BEs) in haemophilia A (HA) and B (HB) patients with inhibitors necessitates the use of bypassing agents. The recombinant factor VIIa bypassing agent eptacog beta has demonstrated efficacy at treating BEs and managing perioperative bleeding in adults in phase three clinical studies. AIM: To provide real-world descriptions of eptacog beta use for BE treatment in patients on emicizumab or eptacog beta prophylaxis. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series of 14 patients who received eptacog beta at seven haemophilia treatment centres, with HA (n = 11) or HB (n = 3) and inhibitors or anaphylaxis to factor replacement. RESULTS: Twenty-four spontaneous and traumatic BEs are described (muscle hematomas, joint hemarthroses, port site, and epistaxis) involving 11 subjects. Eptacog beta was effective for acute bleed treatment as both first-line therapy and for treatment of BEs refractory to eptacog alfa in 23/24 events. When eptacog beta was used for prophylaxis, 2/3 patients reported a decreased frequency of breakthrough BEs compared with prophylactic eptacog alfa and one patient experienced a similar frequency of breakthrough BEs compared with prophylactic activated prothrombin complex concentrate. Eptacog beta provided effective bleed control for three subjects who underwent minor surgical procedures. Treatment with eptacog beta was estimated to be 46%-72% more cost-effective than eptacog alfa. No safety concerns or adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In this case series, eptacog beta was safe, effective, and economical as first-line therapy, treatment of refractory BEs, management of perioperative bleeding, or prophylaxis in haemophilia patients with inhibitors.

Riding the wave of change: Providing solid ground to support nursing with patient transitions to novel haemophilia therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Haemophilia nursing practice has experienced a shift in the past decade, as the historic chief focus on factor infusions shifted to extended half-life products, bispecific antibody therapies and other non-replacement therapies. This evolution has driven a need for changes in nursing practice in many haemophilia treatment centres. AIM: This article intends to provide insights to the haemophilia nurse to champion practice changes at their haemophilia treatment centres. METHODS: Two popular change theories, Lewin's three-step change model and Kotter's eight-step change model are discussed as a framework for haemophilia nurses to think, structure and be leaders in change. CONCLUSION: Examples of these models in practice could give guidance and examples to reflect on for haemophilia nurses needing to make changes in their practice settings. These models of change, alongside existing haemophilia nurse competencies and tools such as the shared decision-making tool from the World Federation of Hemophilia, can assist the nurse to be a capable change agent to usher in these new innovations.

Safety of recombinant activated factor VII for treatment of breakthrough bleeds in patients with congenital haemophilia A and inhibitors receiving emicizumab prophylaxis: Review of the real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND: Emicizumab is used as a subcutaneous prophylaxis for prevention of bleeding episodes in patients with haemophilia A (HA) with and without inhibitors. While low bleeding rates were observed in clinical trials, patients still experience breakthrough bleeds (BTBs) with emicizumab in the real-world. Current guidelines recommend use of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) for treatment of BTBs in patients with inhibitors. Due to thrombotic events observed in the HAVEN 1 study, activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) should be used with caution. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to identify and discuss real-world data on the frequency of BTBs and the safety of concomitant rFVIIa use in patients with inhibitors on emicizumab prophylaxis. METHODS: A search of the following databases was conducted on 15 July 2022: BIOSIS Previews® , Current Contents Search® , Embase® , MEDLINE® . Search terms included 'real world', 'haemophilia A', and 'emicizumab'. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Eleven relevant publications were identified (seven original research articles and four congress abstracts). The frequency of BTBs specifically for HA patients with inhibitors was described in three publications with 5%-56% patients on emicizumab reporting ≥1 bleeding episode. Treatment of these BTBs appeared to be managed according to relevant guidelines. Importantly, no thrombotic complications occurred during concomitant rFVIIa use. Due to the nature of real-world studies, direct comparison of the results between studies is limited. However, real-world data show that BTBs in inhibitor patients during emicizumab prophylaxis can be safely treated with rFVIIa.

Measurement of recombinant porcine factor VIII in patients with congenital haemophilia A and inhibitors in the presence of emicizumab.

INTRODUCTION: Recombinant porcine factor VIII (rpFVIII) is a treatment option for break-through bleeds in patients with congenital haemophilia A with inhibitors (CHAwI) on emicizumab. However, there are limited data about the measurement of rpFVIII in the presence of emicizumab. AIM: To analyse whether rpFVIII can be measured with a chromogenic assay with bovine component (bCSA) in plasma from CHAwI on emicizumab treatment. METHODS: In the first part of the study, FVIII deficient plasma was spiked with rpFVIII, in the second part, commercial plasma from CHAwI was spiked with emicizumab and rpFVIII, and in the third part, plasma from CHAwI on emicizumab treatment was spiked with rpFVIII. FVIII was then measured with bCSA and a chromogenic assay with human component (hCSA). Thrombin generation (TG) and clot-waveform analysis (CWA) were also carried out. RESULTS: The recovery of rpFVIII measured with bCSA is approximately 80% and is further influenced by the presence of an anti-porcine inhibitor. rpFVIII assessed with hCSA was influenced by emicizumab. CWA and TG showed a weak correlation with baseline emicizumab concentration, but peak thrombin and CWA correlated well with increasing emicizumab concentrations and rpFVIII activities. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that rpFVIII can be measured in the presence of emicizumab with a bCSA. A calibration curve for the measurement of rpFVIII with bCSA should be established.

Evaluating the benefits of emicizumab prophylaxis for haemophilia A with inhibitors: A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis in Thailand's upper-middle income setting.

BACKGROUND: In Thailand, an upper-middle-income country, managing haemophilia A (HA) with inhibitors poses significant challenges, often necessitating bypassing agents (BPAs) for bleeding control. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of emicizumab, a novel prophylactic agent, as an alternative to both episodic and prophylactic BPA treatments from a societal perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was employed to estimate the lifetime societal costs and outcomes of emicizumab prophylaxis for HA patients with inhibitors. Treatment efficacy, cost, and epidemiological data were obtained through a comprehensive literature review and incorporated into the model. A 5-year budget impact analysis complemented the cost-utility analysis, with a 3% annual discount rate applied to future costs and outcomes. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, emicizumab prophylaxis in HA patients aged 2 years and above demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness, yielding 18.1 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient over a lifetime and resulting in cost savings of 138 million Thai Baht (THB) compared to BPA prophylaxis. Compared to episodic BPA treatment, emicizumab yielded 30.5 QALYs and saved 25 million THB per patient. The 5-year budget impact was projected at 1775 million THB. CONCLUSIONS: Emicizumab offers a cost-saving approach for HA treatment with inhibitors in Thailand, promising significant health benefits and budgetary savings. This supports its potential inclusion in Thailand's National List of Essential Medicines to enhance haemophilia care access. HIGHLIGHTS: Managing haemophilia A (HA) with inhibitors in Thailand, an upper-middle-income country, faces challenges due to limited access to effective treatments or newer drugs for bleeding management. Emicizumab prophylaxis found to as a cost-effective and viable alternative to traditional treatments, effectively preventing bleeding in Thai HA patients over 2 years old with inhibitors. Demonstrating improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs, emicizumab prophylaxis outperforms episodic BPA treatments, positioning it as a superior treatment option for HA patients with inhibitors in Thailand.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of emicizumab prophylaxis in patients with haemophilia A in India.

INTRODUCTION: Emicizumab is the initial subcutaneously administered bispecific antibody approved as a prophylactic treatment for patients with haemophilia A (PwHA). AIM: This study assessed the economic evaluation of emicizumab treatment for non-inhibitor severe haemophilia A (HA) patients in India. METHODS: A Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of emicizumab prophylaxis compared to on-demand therapy (ODT), low-dose prophylaxis (LDP; 1565 IU/kg/year), intermediate-dose prophylaxis (IDP; 3915 IU/kg/year) and high-dose prophylaxis (HDP; 7125 IU/kg/year) for HA patients without factor VIII inhibitors. Inputs from HAVEN-1 and HAVEN-3 trials included transition probabilities of different bleeding types. Costs and benefits were discounted at a 3.5% annual rate. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, emicizumab was cost-effective compared to HDP, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of Indian rupees (INR) 27,869. Compared to IDP, ODT and LDP, emicizumab prophylaxis could be considered a cost-effective option if the paying threshold is >1 per capita gross domestic product (GDP) with ICER/QALY values of INR 264,592, INR 255,876 and INR 305,398, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) highlighted emicizumab cost as the parameter with the greatest impact on ICERs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that emicizumab had a 94.7% and 49.4% probability of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of three and two-times per capita GDP. CONCLUSION: Emicizumab prophylaxis is cost-effective compared to HDP and provides value for money compared to ODT, IDP, and LDP for severe non-inhibitor PwHA in India. Its long-term humanistic, clinical and economic benefits outweigh alternative options, making it a valuable choice in resource-constrained settings.

Single centre experience of the use of emicizumab in previously untreated and minimally treated patients under 18 months of age.

Emicizumab has revolutionised haemophilia A treatment landscape and significantly reduced treatment burden, particularly in the paediatric population. We conducted a retrospective study, focused on infants aged ≤18 months with severe haemophilia A. The study included 16 patients, with a median age of 8.2 months and median treatment duration of 61.6 weeks. Before commencing emicizumab, six patients were minimally treated with ≤5 exposure days while 10 were previously untreated patients. Notably, all patients had no inhibitors at baseline, and none developed new inhibitors during the study period. Emicizumab was well tolerated, with no observed side effects or major bleeding events.

CHIEF: A retrospective self-control study of children with severe hemophilia A without inhibitors comparing emicizumab to FVIII prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Hemophilia A (HA) is an X-linked bleeding disorder diagnosed by a deficiency in factor VIII (FVIII). For severe HA (SHA), prophylaxis clotting factor concentrates (CFC) has become the standard of care; however, it imparts a high treatment burden and typically results in an annualized bleeding rate (ABR) of 2-6. Emicizumab, a subcutaneously administered FVIII substitute, has become the de facto standard-of-care prophylaxis for children with SHA in many countries. Previous clinical trials of emicizumab have assessed ABR in patients greater than 12 years without inhibitors, and in children less than 12 years with inhibitors; however, there is little information published regarding the ABR of emicizumab compared to CFC in non-inhibitor SHA children. METHODS: Using a retrospective electronic medical record chart review, we conducted a self-control analysis of 15 patients less than 12 years of age during equivalent periods of CFC versus emicizumab prophylaxis. RESULTS: The mean ABR on CFC and emicizumab was 1.79 and 1.13 (p = .092), respectively, with a substantially decreased rate of joint bleeds (CFC 0.94; emicizumab 0.33; p = .001) and spontaneous bleeds (CFC 0.79; emicizumab 0.23; p = .008). No safety events were recorded for patients while administering emicizumab. The mean annual cost of CFC prophylaxis was $515,340 (SD $199,540), compared to $328,410 (SD $137,230) for emicizumab prophylaxis (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Emicizumab resulted in an improved ABR compared to CFC, especially for joint and spontaneous bleeds, had fewer administration complications, and was substantially less expensive compared to CFC prophylaxis; however, more research is necessary for a complete understanding of the effect of emicizumab on joint health and muscle bleeds.

[Novel treatment strategies for acquired hemophilia A].

Acquired hemophilia A (AHA) is a bleeding disorder caused by autoantibody (inhibitor) production targeting blood coagulation factor VIII (FVIII). It is characterized by sudden onset, and often causes extensive and severe bleeding in soft tissue. Acquired hemophilia A is diagnosed when coagulation tests show normal PT, prolonged APTT, decreased FVIII activity, normal VWF activity, and positive FVIII inhibitor. Hemostatic therapy mainly consists of bypass therapy, which activates the extrinsic coagulation pathway, bypassing the need for FVIII or factor IX. Emicizumab, a bispecific antibody that substitutes for FVIII function, can be used to prevent bleeding. Immunosuppressive therapy is necessary to suppress or eradicate inhibitors. The majority of patients go into remission with treatment, but some die from bleeding symptoms or infections associated with immunosuppressive therapy.

Cost-utility analysis of emicizumab for the treatment of severe hemophilia A patients in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: EHL FVIII products and emicizumab provide clinicians with other prophylactic options for treating hemophilia A, however, it is unclear if emicizumab is a cost-saving option. The objective of this study is to estimate the health and economic effects of using prophylactic EHL FVIII, SHL FVIII, and emicizumab in severe haemophilia A patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A state-transition Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic SHL FVIII, EHL FVIII, and emicizumab in a cohort of 2-year-old male patients over a lifetime horizon in the form of a cost-utility analysis using a Canadian provincial ministry of health payer perspective. The transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from literature and the Canadian Bleeding Disorders Registry. Probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The base-case analysis, over a lifetime horizon, resulted in a total cost and utilities per person for SHL FVIII, EHL FVIII, and emicizumab of $27.2 million (M), $36.7 M, and $26.2 M, respectively, and 31.30, 31.16, and 31.61 quality-adjusted life years, respectively. Emicizumab treatment resulted in 29 and 16 less bleeds in a lifetime compared to SHL FVIII and EHL FVIII, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that emicizumab was cost-saving 100% of the time compared to SHL FVIII and EHL FVIII. CONCLUSION: The cost-utility analysis showed that emicizumab is more effective and may be less costly than FVIII for Canadian haemophilia A patients, conditional on drug cost assumptions. Our model indicates that emicizumab may be a potentially favourable treatment option for minimising healthcare costs and providing higher effectiveness.

Emicizumab for the treatment of acquired hemophilia A: Retrospective review of a single-institution experience.

INTRODUCTION: Acquired haemophilia A (AHA) is a rare and potentially life-threatening bleeding disorder arising from autoantibodies that inhibit coagulation factor VIII (FVIII). Treatment entails achieving haemostasis with bypassing agents or factor replacement, and eradication of the inhibitor with immunosuppressive therapy (IST). Due to the rarity of AHA, there are few prospective data to guide management. METHODS: We present a retrospective report of 11 AHA patients treated with emicizumab, a FVIII-mimetic bispecific antibody, administered at 3 mg/kg weekly for 4 weeks in conjunction with rituximab-based immunosuppressive therapy. The chromogenic FVIII inhibitor assay was used to assess for inhibitor eradication. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 13.9 months. The median number of days of additional haemostatic therapy or red blood cell transfusions after initiating emicizumab was 2 (range 0-15). The median was 0 days (range 0-8) for patients who did not require vascular embolization to achieve haemostasis. Eight patients achieved a complete remission (defined as recovery of FVIII activity to > 50% with a negative inhibitor test in the absence of haemostatic and IST); two patients achieved a partial remission (FVIII activity > 50% but with detectable inhibitor); one patient experienced refractory disease. One patient experienced rebleeding and two patients experienced inhibitor recurrence. No thrombotic, thrombotic microangiopathic or infectious complications occurred. CONCLUSION: Our observations suggest emicizumab can facilitate haemostasis for AHA patients and be combined with safer, lower-intensity immunosuppressive therapies to achieve remission.

Emicizumab prophylaxis in haemophilia A with inhibitors: Three years follow-up from the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors' Organisation (UKHCDO).

INTRODUCTION: The UK National Haemophilia Database (NHD) collects data from all UK persons with haemophilia A with inhibitors (PwHA-I). It is well-placed to investigate patient selection, clinical outcomes, drug safety and other issues not addressed in clinical trials of emicizumab. AIMS: To determine safety, bleeding outcomes and early effects on joint health of emicizumab prophylaxis in a large, unselected cohort using national registry and patient reported Haemtrack (HT) data between 01 January 2018 and 30 September 2021. METHODS: Prospectively collected bleeding outcomes were analysed in people with ≥6 months emicizumab HT data and compared with previous treatment if available. Change in paired Haemophilia Joint Health Scores (HJHS) were analysed in a subgroup. Adverse events (AEs) reports were collected and adjudicated centrally. RESULTS: This analysis includes 117 PwHA-I. Mean annualised bleeding rate (ABR) was .32 (95% CI, .18; .39) over a median 42 months treatment with emicizumab. Within-person comparison (n = 74) demonstrated an 89% reduction in ABR after switching to emicizumab and an increase in zero treated bleed rate from 45 to 88% (p < .01). In a subgroup of 37 people, total HJHS improved in 36%, remained stable in 46% and deteriorated in 18%, with a median (IQR) within-person change of -2.0 (-9, 1.5) (p = .04). Three arterial thrombotic events were reported, two possibly drug related. Other AEs were generally non-severe and usually limited to early treatment, included cutaneous reactions (3.6%), headaches (1.4%), nausea (2.8%) and arthralgia (1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Emicizumab prophylaxis is associated with sustained low bleeding rates and was generally well-tolerated in people with haemophilia A and inhibitors.

Dilemmas on emicizumab in children with haemophilia A: A survey of strategies from PedNet centres.

INTRODUCTION: Haemophilia A care has changed with the introduction of emicizumab. Experience on the youngest children is still scarce and clinical practice varies between haemophilia treatment centres. AIM: We aimed to assess the current clinical practice on emicizumab prophylaxis within PedNet, a collaborative research platform for paediatricians treating children with haemophilia. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to all PedNet members (n = 32) between October 2022 and February 2023. The survey included questions on the availability of emicizumab, on the practice of initiating prophylaxis in previously untreated or minimally treated patients (PUPs or MTPs) and emicizumab use in patients with or without inhibitors. RESULTS: All but four centres (28/32; 88%) responded. Emicizumab was available in clinical practice in 25/28 centres (89%), and in 3/28 for selected patients only (e.g. with inhibitors). Emicizumab was the preferred choice for prophylaxis in PUPs or MTPs in 20/25 centres; most (85%) started emicizumab prophylaxis before 1 year of age (30% before 6 months of age) and without concomitant FVIII (16/20; 80%). After the loading dose, 13/28 centres administered the recommended dosing, while the others adjusted the interval of injections to give whole vials. In inhibitor patients, the use of emicizumab during ITI was common, with low-dose ITI being the preferred protocol. CONCLUSION: Most centres choose to initiate prophylaxis with emicizumab before 12 months of age and without concomitant FVIII. In inhibitor patients, ITI is mostly given in addition to emicizumab, but there was no common practice on how to proceed after successful ITI.